Did old Jackie take into account the fact that Michael was 41 when he came back and hadn't raced a car competitively for 3 years while Kimi is almost 10 years younger and had been racing rally and other series in his time away which was shorter than Michael's (2 years)?

Nevermind that Kimi's car is leagues better than anything MS or Rosberg have had the displeasure of driving the last 3 years. Stewart (like Lauda) is a know-it-all **** that wishes he had a career like Schumacher. Sorry Jackie, you don't!

...furthermore Kimi´s teammate (which is the best benchmark to judge his performances) was absent in F1 as long as Kimi before and had extremly little F1-experience in general (a few races in 2009). That´s hardly the same as joining Rosberg, who never stopped in F1 since he began in 2006.

...furthermore Kimi´s teammate (which is the best benchmark to judge his performances)...

...you sure that's actually a true statement? I think it is a false statement to make. Since when you can calibrate your own performance based on a teammate? You calibrate your performance against a guy at the top. If it is your teammate, so be it, but not otherwise. (Just a thought).

...you sure that's actually a true statement? I think it is a false statement to make. Since when you can calibrate your own performance based on a teammate? You calibrate your performance against a guy at the top. If it is your teammate, so be it, but not otherwise. (Just a thought).

So if Raikkonen would´ve scored that exact same results as he did, you would rate his performances exactly the same, even if Grosjean would´ve won regularly instead of crashing out over and over again?I don´t think so. It always flatters someone to be in front of his teammate.

Another point is, that the teammate at least gives you a rough guess of the car´s potential. And taking that into account i´m far away from the POV of some Kimi-supporters, who even think he was the best driver so far this season.The Renault was a very good car in the first half of the season and both drivers missed some opportunities to get a better result. Nonetheless Kimi did ok for me so far, but that doesn´t change my opinion that the quality of his car as well as the sub-optimal performances of his teammate made things easier for him compared to Schumachers comeback.

So if Raikkonen would´ve scored that exact same results as he did, you would rate his performances exactly the same, even if Grosjean would´ve won regularly instead of crashing out over and over again?I don´t think so. It always flatters someone to be in front of his teammate.

Another point is, that the teammate at least gives you a rough guess of the car´s potential. And taking that into account i´m far away from the POV of some Kimi-supporters, who even think he was the best driver so far this season.The Renault was a very good car in the first half of the season and both drivers missed some opportunities to get a better result. Nonetheless Kimi did ok for me so far, but that doesn´t change my opinion that the quality of his car as well as the sub-optimal performances of his teammate made things easier for him compared to Schumachers comeback.

Not to quibble, but point I was attempting to make is, that if your teammmate is mediocre, and you beat him (in racing terms), that doesn't mean you should be complacent, because in wider scheme of things you might not be doing terribly well. This comparison of yours works only if you are failing behind your teammate, and transparency of bad performance is obvious.

For example I was never happy about Kubica's performance in BMW, because he was a prime case of lazy complacency as I saw it. I also do not buy forum-wide assumption, that if Alonso or Hamilton aren't doing too good, it's a car problem. A winner in his own right should be a benchmark for judging those things IMO! Schumacher was having all kind of issues in past three years, of which a very few were age related. Could he do better? Of course, but he is the only one who could say how much, but case of Kimi I think is not a good comparative example to judge Schumacher's comeback. Different car, different conditions, different support. (I am sorry of I sound contrarian, but take it only as a friendly discussion, please).

Not to quibble, but point I was attempting to make is, that if your teammmate is mediocre, and you beat him (in racing terms), that doesn't mean you should be complacent, because in wider scheme of things you might not be doing terribly well. This comparison of yours works only if you are failing behind your teammate, and transparency of bad performance is obvious.

Ok, we talked about different things then.I was talking from a spectator´s POV when i mentioned the teammate - you talked about the driver himself.

Are you kidding me? Come on, you don't have to defend Schumacher!!People like Steward are not to be taken seriously, just like the person who posted the remark.People that claim Schumacher is not a true racer are not very bright people, and that's ok.We need those people to in the world...

That sounds quite similar to "a certified half-wit", doesn't it?

You all know my ambivalence towards Schumacher, but here Jackie Stewart is certainly off the mark.

But Niki managed to make a sucsessful comeback and beat a much younger and faster teamate to the world title. So he has a pretty good perch to make criticisms from don't you think?

That's always been Lauda's strength - the mental focus. Schumacher in his comeback was not as mighty on the mental side as Niki has been. That lead to Michael being more human and likeable but less successful.

The whole age-story concerning Schumi is wrong, at least that's my conclusion at this point - he could still win with 47 if the car would provide that and if he would be mentally fully on it. As it is, the bad reliability has led to Michael being unreliable on the mental level (many strange moments in 2010, 2011 and 2012 bear testimonial to that) - or, vice versa, has the mental flickering of Schumacher led to the car and team unreliability? It always goes both ways, doesn't it?

i feel like i shouldn't have posted that article regarding stewart/kimi/schumi it has brewed quiet a storm i see ...
maybe stewart meant to say it about schumi's return, his merc stint, not about his early carrier, or maybe he has a grudge against him ... we'll never know

but look at it this way, it gives us something to bicker about till the next GP

A lot for many drivers. Lauda got back in at his 34th and ended at 37. I think you still needed a shitload of quick reflexes and he did good at that department, just like MSC is doing now. Only the workload has become much higher, although the speeds have dropped off a bit.

Other than people who do not like Michael for his percieved character flaws (none of which I see or agree with) and who will try to stick the knife in at any opportunity, the people who try to diminish his speed or ability surely were not there and watch him when he made his debut. It's the only explanation, isn't it?

I remember being blown away by this new driver and his natural ability, and have not seen anything close since. I think it telling that the people who hold Michael in high regard were generally there since day 1, so have a lot of experience in watching F1

I for one was somewhat shocked to see schumacher line up 7th on the grid. I remember that day just like yesterday. I was surprised to see a young 22 year old german so close to the Williams, Mclarens and Ferraris, with the likes of Senna, Mansell, Prost. Indeed the remaining races of 1991 we saw how he blew away Nelson Piquet in the same car for pace.

Lets not forget 1992, he was often trailing the mighty Williams FW14B and many times ahead of the Mclarens and Ferraris, great things were destined for this young german. I remember there was lots of positive things being said about him by Murray Walker - http://www.youtube.c...feature=related, James Hunt and even Jonathon Palmer, Steve Rider. Ron Dennis was no fool and saw something very special in Schumacher - watch this

It was only when the famous Hill incident in Adelaid that the british press used every opportunity to attack him. yes just like Senna before, he was ruthless on track, but had all the hallmarks of a champion and a selfish streak to achieve total success. Our British drivers like Brundle, Hill, DC, Herby and co could not touch him, they were often trailing and when the likes of Hill or DC were ahead, they were in superiour Newey designed machinery. Infact all of his losses to be WC came against newey designed cars untill 2005, where the Bridgestones lost its edge and in 2006 it was more even between him an Alonso bu we saw that he was a top class driver even in 2006 one of the very best on the grid.

That's always been Lauda's strength - the mental focus. Schumacher in his comeback was not as mighty on the mental side as Niki has been. That lead to Michael being more human and likeable but less successful.

The whole age-story concerning Schumi is wrong, at least that's my conclusion at this point - he could still win with 47 if the car would provide that and if he would be mentally fully on it. As it is, the bad reliability has led to Michael being unreliable on the mental level (many strange moments in 2010, 2011 and 2012 bear testimonial to that) - or, vice versa, has the mental flickering of Schumacher led to the car and team unreliability? It always goes both ways, doesn't it?

As above, so below, as within, so without....

diffferent motor racing series - but my father still won motor races aged in his 70's (he didn't start racing til mid 20's) ... so it's still possible, but he says it's a hell of a lot harder!

now Michael's mental flickering - has nothing to do with wheel nuts not being put on cars property - so no - it doesn't go both ways...unless of course he got out of the car and puthis own wheels on.

That's always been Lauda's strength - the mental focus. Schumacher in his comeback was not as mighty on the mental side as Niki has been. That lead to Michael being more human and likeable but less successful.

The whole age-story concerning Schumi is wrong, at least that's my conclusion at this point - he could still win with 47 if the car would provide that and if he would be mentally fully on it. As it is, the bad reliability has led to Michael being unreliable on the mental level (many strange moments in 2010, 2011 and 2012 bear testimonial to that) - or, vice versa, has the mental flickering of Schumacher led to the car and team unreliability? It always goes both ways, doesn't it?

As above, so below, as within, so without....

That's the greatest bullshit I've ever heard . In 2011, we heard Coulthard saying Schumacher popped out of the garage at 5am. Mental dedication after 1.5 seasons? I think so. 2012? The same, being at the circuit (Korea) an hour earlier than EVERYBODY else. He's still trying to get that damn cart moving but he hasn't the mental energy to pull that off for another season in that team. I can't blame him. F1 = maximum energy sapping, especially if you're F1's grandpaps.

He probably has to train harder, faster and longer than his peers that are half his age.

He has to be more concious of what he eats as metabolism slows down as you age

Not to mention he has to motivate himself more now than when he was younger.

This is the good time to retire, he has nothing left to prove, he will always be a legend and he has proven that he is still a top flight driver at age 43 (if more erratic) and is still a match for a guy that is in his prime speed wise in Nico Rosberg.

That's the greatest bullshit I've ever heard . In 2011, we heard Coulthard saying Schumacher popped out of the garage at 5am. Mental dedication after 1.5 seasons? I think so. 2012? The same, being at the circuit (Korea) an hour earlier than EVERYBODY else. He's still trying to get that damn cart moving but he hasn't the mental energy to pull that off for another season in that team. I can't blame him. F1 = maximum energy sapping, especially if you're F1's grandpaps.

Yep,

Unfortunately MS is not Professor X. He can't move things with his mind....

Adrian Newey on the other hand.....

All kidding aside: MS still is exhibiting the focus and dedication that most of the F1 drivers cannot match.

Does anyone has decent explanation why from this article was retracted that Hamilton will have No. 1 status at Mercedes, yet the statement that installing Hamilton has forced Schumacher to retire remains undeleted? Based on what we know today, I think (bolded) is just as inaccurate statement as the former.

A. Benson | BBC / Hamilton to Mercedes

The move, predicted by BBC Sport earlier this month, will be announced on Fridayand will have huge repercussions throughout Formula 1. It has forced Michael Schumacher out of Mercedes but it it is not clear whetherthe German legend will go back into retirement or look for another team.

In stake is historical accuracy, and readers a few yares from now will take it as a fact.

What has the era got to do with it? I would think driving a 1984 McLaren Tag Porsche was a pretty demanding task, especially as his team mate was one of the top drivers of all time. And 35 is no spring chicken not that age has anything to do with it as Mr Fangio will tell you.

Does anyone has decent explanation why from this article was retracted that Hamilton will have No. 1 status at Mercedes, yet the statement that installing Hamilton has forced Schumacher to retire remains undeleted? Based on what we know today, I think (bolded) is just as inaccurate statement as the former.

A. Benson | BBC / Hamilton to Mercedes

In stake is historical accuracy, and readers a few yares from now will take it as a fact.

Article doesn't claim Hamilton forced Schumacher to retire, but that he was forced out of Mercedes - which is accurate in the sense that Schumacher no longer had the option to continue driving for Merc after the deal was done. He was forced to look elsewhere or retire. Before the Hamilton deal, he had the option to continue with Merc.

Article doesn't claim Hamilton forced Schumacher to retire, but that he was forced out of Mercedes - which is accurate in the sense that Schumacher no longer had the option to continue driving for Merc after the deal was done. He was forced to look elsewhere or retire. Before the Hamilton deal, he had the option to continue with Merc.

After several hunderds of words on the subject, I thought this was clear now; a few related quotes:Lauda

But Lauda, Mercedes’ new non-executive chairman, is quoted by Bild newspaper: “He was not forced out. I want to emphasise that very clearly.”

Haug

Faced with the same accusation about Schumacher being deliberately ousted, Mercedes’ Haug insisted: “That was not the case.

Schumacher (on not picking up his option)

Schumacher said his latest decision to retire is simply about motivation rather than age or any other factor.“There were times in the past few months in which I didn’t want to deal with Formula One or prepare for the next grand prix,” he admitted.

"Now almost two years after Schumacher and Audemars Piguet announced their relationship, will there be the first limited edition watch collection to celebrate Michael’s accomplishments. " .. http://www.forbes.co...es-to-fruition/

"Now almost two years after Schumacher and Audemars Piguet announced their relationship, will there be the first limited edition watch collection to celebrate Michael’s accomplishments. " .. http://www.forbes.co...es-to-fruition/

After several hunderds of words on the subject, I thought this was clear now; a few related quotes:Lauda

Haug

Schumacher (on not picking up his option)

Are the all lying then?

No, Sakae look at the original quote in the article again, it is: "It has forced Michael Schumacher out of Mercedes"

The "it" in the sentence refers to Hamilton's move. All the quotes you provide above confirm that it wasn't Mercedes who forced Michael out, but that wasn't the original claim to begin with. Also there's no reference to retirement in that original quote, so Michael's eventual statement of retirement is not relevant here.

Basically, Michael still has the keys, but they went and changed the locks on the doors. If you want to argue that they never asked for Michael's keys back, and that he wasn't going to try and use his key again anyway, that's your prerogative. But I don't really find that a compelling argument against Benson's quote remaining in the article.

No, Sakae look at the original quote in the article again, it is: "It has forced Michael Schumacher out of Mercedes"

The "it" in the sentence refers to Hamilton's move. All the quotes you provide above confirm that it wasn't Mercedes who forced Michael out, but that wasn't the original claim to begin with. Also there's no reference to retirement in that original quote, so Michael's eventual statement of retirement is not relevant here.

Basically, Michael still has the keys, but they went and changed the locks on the doors. If you want to argue that they never asked for Michael's keys back, and that he wasn't going to try and use his key again anyway, that's your prerogative. But I don't really find that a compelling argument against Benson's quote remaining in the article.

Sorry then, but my linguistic understanding lacking somewhere, because I retain understanding that had Michael picked up on his option, then Hamilton would have to find another solution. However, since Michael decided to leave under his own volition, his seat has become available to other driver. It is the only logical conclusion. Contract extension was discussed and confirmed by Haug, but from another sources it was said, that Mercedes wanted him to sign for two more years, whereas Michael wasn’t sure he wanted to drive another week, never mind a year or two. No one has then forced anyone into anything, that's my interpretation of it, and a reason why I think Benson is technically inaccurate in his article. (English is my third language, thus I could be perhaps wrong).

Sorry then, but my linguistic understanding lacking somewhere, because I retain understanding that had Michael picked up on his option, then Hamilton would have to find another solution. However, since Michael decided to leave under his own volition, his seat has become available to other driver. It is the only logical conclusion. Contract extension was discussed and confirmed by Haug, but from another sources it was said, that Mercedes wanted him to sign for two more years, whereas Michael wasn’t sure he wanted to drive another week, never mind a year or two. No one has then forced anyone into anything, that's my interpretation of it, and a reason why I think Benson is technically inaccurate in his article. (English is my third language, thus I could be perhaps wrong).

I see. Your interpretation hinges on whether or not Michael was negotiating with Merc after his option expired. If he wasn't negotiating, you would be right. It appears Andrew Benson thought/thinks he was. There's not enough evidence either way in my opinion. But I see where you're coming from and understand why you think Benson is/was wrong.

the way i understand it, mercedes does not really care if what will be michael's decision whether retirement or driving. by the time they announced hamilton's signing michaels havent decided yet what his plans are, i thought they are negotiating and waiting for michael. yes, i understand that its an opportunity that merc should not pass on but they could have and chosen to handle the situation better.

the way i understand it, mercedes does not really care if what will be michael's decision whether retirement or driving. by the time they announced hamilton's signing michaels havent decided yet what his plans are, i thought they are negotiating and waiting for michael. yes, i understand that its an opportunity that merc should not pass on but they could have and chosen to handle the situation better.

Mercedes and all those British journalists are really talking BS.

Even if Hamilton was ready to join Merc, all they had to do is ask MS one question: "Michael, you have been taking some time now thinking on whether you will continue. Lewis is willing to join and we are neering an agreement, so we would like you to make a decision by next week. Could you give us your final decision by next Monday?"

Instead of that they ignored him and simply went for Lewis all the way. To me this nothing less then disrepetful for someone who risked his reputation to save their asses from the discraceful monkeys that call themselves a F1 topteam.

Even if Hamilton was ready to join Merc, all they had to do is ask MS one question: "Michael, you have been taking some time now thinking on whether you will continue. Lewis is willing to join and we are neering an agreement, so we would like you to make a decision by next week. Could you give us your final decision by next Monday?"

Instead of that they ignored him and simply went for Lewis all the way. To me this nothing less then disrepetful for someone who risked his reputation to save their asses from the discraceful monkeys that call themselves a F1 topteam.

Exactly! And the final piece for me to really believe that is michael only told merc 5 mins before the conference meeting at suzuka, and you can clearly tell haug and ross is not comfortable at all. michael could have said, " ok guys, since that youve finally signed lewis i will retire at the end of the season" I say michael is really being a gentleman here and swallowing all his pride for this s#!+ team. My respect and admiration for michael had risen to infinity.

Some fans here don't understand that MS fans don't care why he is not in Mercedes team next year. It was right decision. Nobody here is sorry for that outcome. Lewis fans will have to worry next year, not we.
Retiring probably was not the right decision, there is other teams on Mercedes level or even better- Sauber,Williams,FI or STR.

Some fans here don't understand that MS fans don't care why he is not in Mercedes team next year. It was right decision. Nobody here is sorry for that outcome. Lewis fans will have to worry next year, not we. Retiring probably was not the right decision, there is other teams on Mercedes level or even better- Sauber,Williams,FI or STR.

There is a lot of unanswered questions. Just for sake of historical accuracy, as nothing will change, no minds on either side of the issue, no decisions about what was done.

- Why he contacted Jean T. several days in advance of his announcement, and his collegaues (and a friend - former?) got only 5 min? This is not normal, and Michael was upset for some reason. What caused this big divide at Brackley? Simple explanation could be his perception of mishandling by management how his intent to retire for good, was announced, I am not sure.

- Nature of his (admitted) exhaustion. Would he really drive for any other team after Mercedes because he was mentally tired of primadonas at Brackley, or his general disposition was ready to quit for good as he is fed up with state of F1 (and I would include race control, tires, stewards, media, etc.)? Schumacher stated at least on one occassion that he is currently fit and able to compete in remaining races at utmost levels, car permitting.

There are more questions of course I would like to ask, but answers to those two could explain a lot.

There is a lot of unanswered questions. Just for sake of historical accuracy, as nothing will change, no minds on either side of the issue, no decisions about what was done.

- Why he contacted Jean T. several days in advance of his announcement, and his collegaues (and a friend - former?) got only 5 min? This is not normal, and Michael was upset for some reason. What caused this big divide at Brackley? Simple explanation could be his perception of mishandling by management how his intent to retire for good, was announced, I am not sure.

- Nature of his (admitted) exhaustion. Would he really drive for any other team after Mercedes because he was mentally tired of primadonas at Brackley, or his general disposition was ready to quit for good as he is fed up with state of F1 (and I would include race control, tires, stewards, media, etc.)? Schumacher stated at least on one occassion that he is currently fit and able to compete in remaining races at utmost levels, car permitting.

There are more questions of course I would like to ask, but answers to those two could explain a lot.

It sort of seems similar to his first retirement where he couldn't decide if he wanted to continue or not and with the season going into the final races the teams just couldn't wait on his decision, not entirely the same but similar

I for one was somewhat shocked to see schumacher line up 7th on the grid. I remember that day just like yesterday. I was surprised to see a young 22 year old german so close to the Williams, Mclarens and Ferraris, with the likes of Senna, Mansell, Prost. Indeed the remaining races of 1991 we saw how he blew away Nelson Piquet in the same car for pace.

Lets not forget 1992, he was often trailing the mighty Williams FW14B and many times ahead of the Mclarens and Ferraris, great things were destined for this young german. I remember there was lots of positive things being said about him by Murray Walker - http://www.youtube.c...feature=related, James Hunt and even Jonathon Palmer, Steve Rider. Ron Dennis was no fool and saw something very special in Schumacher - watch this

It was only when the famous Hill incident in Adelaid that the british press used every opportunity to attack him. yes just like Senna before, he was ruthless on track, but had all the hallmarks of a champion and a selfish streak to achieve total success. Our British drivers like Brundle, Hill, DC, Herby and co could not touch him, they were often trailing and when the likes of Hill or DC were ahead, they were in superiour Newey designed machinery. Infact all of his losses to be WC came against newey designed cars untill 2005, where the Bridgestones lost its edge and in 2006 it was more even between him an Alonso bu we saw that he was a top class driver even in 2006 one of the very best on the grid.

Totally agree not to mention a driver needs to be in the position of MS in Adelaide before we can judge him and not many ever are but I am sure many would do the same.

Even if Hamilton was ready to join Merc, all they had to do is ask MS one question: "Michael, you have been taking some time now thinking on whether you will continue. Lewis is willing to join and we are neering an agreement, so we would like you to make a decision by next week. Could you give us your final decision by next Monday?"

Instead of that they ignored him and simply went for Lewis all the way. To me this nothing less then disrepetful for someone who risked his reputation to save their asses from the discraceful monkeys that call themselves a F1 topteam.

The last paragraph sums it up for me. His legacy and reputation has taken a battering in the eyes of many.

I still believe he is the greatest driver of all time and nothing will ever change my opinion.

Even if Hamilton was ready to join Merc, all they had to do is ask MS one question: "Michael, you have been taking some time now thinking on whether you will continue. Lewis is willing to join and we are neering an agreement, so we would like you to make a decision by next week. Could you give us your final decision by next Monday?"

Well, that's expectancy how well behaved people conduct their business. Problem is, we do not know exact nature of Michael's hesitancy to cut the cord in a surgical manner much sooner. Something was holding him back, and whatever it was, I think it was extending beyond simple indecisivenes, nor I think he tried to blackmail/milk Mercedes for more cash. Maybe he wanted to retire, but promised to stay, if a deal with Hamilton fall's through, thus he was waiting on Lewis' decision. British media of course took their line of narrative, making Schumacher looking like a fool in the process. This is all of course guess work, but fact remains, PR side of it was disgusting.

Also keep in mind that at age 35 Michael was behind the wheel of the F2004 setting records right and left.

NEXT!

Next?

Here goes.... Niki Lauda became WDC in his second career against Alain Prost, second most successful driver in history. Michael Schumacher failed in his second career against Nico Rosberg, one GP victory to his credit.

It's especially in this thread that we find people with a very twisted sense of reality.

now Michael's mental flickering - has nothing to do with wheel nuts not being put on cars property - so no - it doesn't go both ways...unless of course he got out of the car and puthis own wheels on.

I bet it inspired his mechanics a lot to have seen him crashing into Senna, Kobayashi, Vergne as well as missing his grid slot in Hungary, turning off the engine etc.

Michael's "mental flickering" led to a mental flickering in his team. In 2010 the team made far less mistakes than in 2012. What happened? Did they suddenly become incapable? Or did they just notice Michael's lack of motivation and lack of mental zeal and also lost the edge in their preparation of Michael's car?

Michael got what he deserved. He returned just to drive for fun, while the team got the car on the grid each time because they live for it. After a while they noticed the lack of Michael's total, unconditional will to win and so also softened in their will.

If that is not clear to you you will still have many interesting experiences in life about mind power.

Schumacher said his latest decision to retire is simply about motivation rather than age or any other factor.“There were times in the past few months in which I didn’t want to deal with Formula One or prepare for the next grand prix,” he admitted.

That was notable.

It lead to Michael's final demise. Where does motivation come from? The mind. Back in Lauda's days he was often asked how he managed to win a third WDC after the comeback and he used to say "It's all down to your ability to motivate yourself".

Here goes.... Niki Lauda became WDC in his second career against Alain Prost, second most successful driver in history. Michael Schumacher failed in his second career against Nico Rosberg, one GP victory to his credit.

Are you even serious with this lot of twaddle?

Niki Lauda, at 34, came back for a couple of years and won a well earned and frankly heroic (due to his injuries) championship in a great car, easily the best of the year.

Michael Schumacher, at 34, was in the middle of the greatest run of success by any driver in history. No comparison of a driver at the same age will ever make Michael look less than amazing.

His mercedes career is in his 40s, and yet he is still as good as anyone on the track. At that age lauda was polishing boardroom seats with his ass.

In 2010 the team made far less mistakes than in 2012. What happened? Did they suddenly become incapable? Or did they just notice Michael's lack of motivation and lack of mental zeal and also lost the edge in their preparation of Michael's car?

In 2010 result were inconsistent but how much of that was due to MSC and how much due to the team is unknown. After a proper race at Suzuka that year MSC was very explicit that on that particular weekend machinery worked as expected, unlike other weekends. When Haug was asked about those comments he did not deny anything MSC voiced.

I am making a very valid comparison, as Michael himself said it has nothing to do with age. He said it had to do with his motivation - and that's exactly what I was pointing to.

I wonder why you still think that age is the deciding factor. Besides, the tone in your post is not kind.

Well you were comparing 'like with like' but the two situations could not be less alike.. Niki was still a driver with only 7(?) f1 years behind him, and he came back into a top team with, as it turned out, a great and improving car. Whereas Michael was considered to be done and gone after a very long 15 career already, and came back as an experiment to, as it turned out a team in a hell of a mess, and has not had a truly competitive car at all.

So I don't think age is the performance issue no, the only real performance issue has been the car and team. If Michael had been in a car like the 84 Mac and driving like this year then even you would have to confess he would have a great shot at the WDC (hell lets be clear, he would have won it), and people would be praising him to the rafters..

Michael is feeling that it isn't worth the effort any more, precisely because he can't see a result at the end of it with this team, that seems clear and logical.

In 2010 result were inconsistent but how much of that was due to MSC and how much due to the team is unknown. After a proper race at Suzuka that year MSC was very explicit that on that particular weekend machinery worked as expected, unlike other weekends. When Haug was asked about those comments he did not deny anything MSC voiced.

Rest of your post is pure one-sided provocation.

I am amazed how a team that was WDC the year before could lose it's direction so quickly. Mind you, I am speaking about the team, not the car. The car in 2009 was Ross smartly finding the ideal interpretation of the rules. The team, however, was not that bad.

With Mercedes/Michael/Nico that all changed.

Strange how Michael went from a team where everything worked (Ferrari) to a team where "machinery did not work as expected". And strange that came just a year after they were WDCs. Still have no explanation for that.

Was Mercedes the unsettling factor? Michael? Had Ross suddenly lost the plot?

Jacques with BAR (the same team) scored more podiums (2) in three years (1999-2001) than Michael with Mercedes (1)....

Well you were comparing 'like with like' but the two situations could not be less alike.. Niki was still a driver with only 7(?) f1 years behind him, and he came back into a top team with, as it turned out, a great and improving car. Whereas Michael was considered to be done and gone after a very long 15 career already, and came back as an experiment to, as it turned out a team in a hell of a mess, and has not had a truly competitive car at all.So I don't think age is the performance issue no, the only real performance issue has been the car and team. If Michael had been in a car like the 84 Mac and driving like this year then even you would have to confess he would have a great shot at the WDC (hell lets be clear, he would have won it), and people would be praising him to the rafters..Michael is feeling that it isn't worth the effort any more, precisely because he can't see a result at the end of it with this team, that seems clear and logical.

Very much agreed, sir.

I believe if Michael was in a Ferrari F2012 or Red Bull, he would be leading the championship.